What is Digg?175 Comments
- Ratatosk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+37DO NOT USE THIS. I just tried this a few days ago, and I got to admit it all works well and it's a very cool idea, but now the but:
As they say themselves in the FAQ, there are 2 problems:
1. there is no hibernate/suspend (okay, that's not that big a deal if you don't care about it) and
2. if you do a hard reboot (i.e. press the power button) your boot.ini will be broken and you can't boot anything. You'll need to insert your winXP CD and go to the recovery console (takes like 10 mins to load). Then mess around with the commands there until you can replace it, and then you still don't have it working for ubuntu anymore.... and this happens nearly every time your pc would freeze (and it locked up my keyboard too, so I couldn't escape)...
trust me, after you have this twice, you rather have yourself a few gigs of free hard drive (unpartitioned), get yourself the ubuntu CD (or the alternative one for systems like mine where the other one doesn't work) and install it properly.
I love ubuntu now since I tried it last week, and the CD install was quick (way faster than XP) and everything worked fine. If you can install winXP on a cd, you can also use a CD for ubuntu.
Else I like the wubi project/idea, if they only could fix that boot.ini problem:( - Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38 You can do the same with Debian:
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/ - Noctem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28Wait, what?
There's other Linux besides Ubuntu?! - grungegbunny, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Dugg up using my new installed Ubuntu from this article.
- tehrob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25Dugg, but barely because it a softepedia link, and I hate that site.
- Optimaximal, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Well, there's Kubuntu...
- Asandia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Yes
- xivulon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Not quite. The only thing they have in common is that they both spare you the trouble of having to burn a CD. But while the debian installer requires you to create a dedicated partition and to change the bootloader, Wubi will install Ubuntu inside of a windows file, hence it does not touch the partitions, nor the bootloader, and it can be uninstalled as a normal application.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20Do you know what sucks about Ubuntu + Gnome? This
http://aycu10.webshots.com/image/23969/2005908799363071431_rs.jpg
You can't even make it show the thumbnails in the upload dialog box. This is an ELEMENTARY usability feature that it's missing. - evanstapler, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15I hate to be an idiot, and I'll probably get dugg down, but does this allow you to dual-boot with Windows AND Ubuntu?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16They don't have cool commercials and trendy devices like Macintosh. They piss off coders too for trying to force people to adhere to a standard, when coders like the free-er lifestyle linux/opensource provides them.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Yes.
- UlicBelouve, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I prefer swappable hard drives on my laptop. One Windows, one Ubuntu. Zero risk of one OS damaging the other. Plus, I have a backup to a server. Redundancy wins.
- Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16they look to monopolize the business and have a reputation for stealing code.
- netkid91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I find it ironic that someone is making a post to 4chan in that screen...
- NTolerance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The Gnome open/save dialog is absolutely horrid. No thumbnails, doesn't remember resized settings, doesn't remember last used path, doesn't allow you to type in a pathname...
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Actually they piss off coders for continually breaking standards. There is nothing as far away from standards than anything written by MS. Even their libc implementation does some ridiculous non standard stuff (of course it's totally knackered in Vista).
This was the main focal point of the Java lawsuit. The point of Java is it was a standard, MS tried to make it non standard for no discernible benefit. - Blackforge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Because its not a virtual machine. It's a bootable disk image so you don't have to repartion a drive/find a spare drive to make a ext3/reiser/etc partition. Handy if you don't want to potentially demolish your partition but want close to full-speed Linux. Before you say how hard is it to repartion, go look at the Ubuntu forums and see how many people resizing their disks have FUBARed their Windows partition by accidently deleting it. And before you say use the LiveCD, it can be pretty slow at times and doesn't work for everyone. Read the FAQ about Wubi: http://wubi-installer.org/faq.php
- Dragular, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's not running in a virtual machine, so it basically allows people like me, with older PC's, to try Linux without having to figure out too much stuff or take a huge performance hit running a virtual machine or LiveCD.
- Diffy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8WOW this is really fantastic. I mean THIS is truely amazing news that is ground breaking and just incredible! I really wish there were more stories like this all the time and nothing else. This is the best thing to ever happen to me, and I love it so much that I can't explain in words because our language does not do it justice.
- neodorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7People like choices. If Windows ain't doing it for them, they want to try other OS'es. OSX has the unix base but it's only available (legally) on expensive Mac hardware and doesn't have the software availability. Linux is free and has lots of free software but there's a little more learning curve and a similar lack of native games. There are lots of pros and cons but this is cool for people who want to try something new. It's particularly good for me because I have a lappy with no CD drive.
- joemofo214, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'm a pc gamer. I will convert when more companys allow me to build gaming macs
- Giever, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Yes!
- dtiziani, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Pick any, you'll be right!
- BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11"I'm using a mac, and I don't (see) why people hate microsoft."
Exactly. - dschep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7That is the latest STABLE version though, which is what most people would want to run, especially people who only want to install an easily removable version of Ubuntu.
- spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6There's a lot of awful download sites out there but Softpedia is one I trust. No logins and it hosts the files instead of just pointing you to the content owner like download.com. I have a soft spot for Softpedia because the first time I used their site I downloaded the Windows XP Royale theme.
- Zuggy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I haven't used wubi so I don't know for sure but it looks like the advantage is that when you boot up Ubuntu your using Ubuntu by itself on a virtual drive vs running a virtual machine on top of an already running OS.
You also have the advantage that wubi is a lot easier to install and use then virtual pc and vmware. - Bradl3y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This method does not use a VM
From wubi-installer.org:
How does Wubi work?
Wubi adds an entry to the Windows boot menu which allows you to run Linux. Ubuntu is installed within a file in the windows file system (c:wubidiskssystem.virtual.disk), this file is seen by Linux as a real hard disk.
Is this running Ubuntu within a virtual environment or something similar?
No. This is a real installation, the only difference is that Ubuntu is installed within a file as opposed to being installed within its own partition. Thus we spare you the trouble to create a free partition for Ubuntu. And we spare you the trouble to have to burn a CD-Rom. - Optimaximal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Technically, all you need is one of the latest Macs (with the NVidia 8xxx graphics chips) running Boot Camp...
Voila, one gaming Mac! - M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Are you OK?
- Optimaximal, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Who? Microsoft or Apple?
- evanstapler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Go here:
http://www.digg.com/users/evanstapler/edit/topics
Then just uncheck Linux/Unix under "Technology". - hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Because he's still wrong. It's not a VM, it's a Virtual File System.
- da5id, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I use Wubi. All this is correct. It installs as a bootable Windows folder on any internal drive (maybe external, never tried.) Very cool. No partitioning. Very fast -- it boots, not running in Windows. Kinda like old BeOS folder.
- outlaw686, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This article is about Installing Ubuntu in a simple and easy way for many people who have had problems with installing it before and gave up... It has nothing to do with hating Microsoft
- AdHaR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Xubuntu, Edubuntu...
- hansonc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It doesn't run via the windows layer, it runs natively. Only the installer uses Windows.
- Bradl3y, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yes, it does not run in a VM:
From wubi-installer.org:
How does Wubi work?
Wubi adds an entry to the Windows boot menu which allows you to run Linux. Ubuntu is installed within a file in the windows file system (c:wubidiskssystem.virtual.disk), this file is seen by Linux as a real hard disk.
Is this running Ubuntu within a virtual environment or something similar?
No. This is a real installation, the only difference is that Ubuntu is installed within a file as opposed to being installed within its own partition. Thus we spare you the trouble to create a free partition for Ubuntu. And we spare you the trouble to have to burn a CD-Rom. - Hermmunster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Incredibly easy to install. Ubuntu has always been incredibly easy to use. Of course, if you are hell bent on a Windows clone think again. Are there new ideas and concepts to learn? Of course, just as there's a learning curve. Fortunately, once installed you should not have a significant learning curve as it was designed to keep things simple. But, sure there are still issues, as with any OS. Even windows has some pretty serious issues with hardware and configuration. That's why the average person doesn't install it. Can the average person install Ubuntu faster than they can install XP (and certainly Vista)? Of course. It is super how easy it is to install. Almost no effort. With wubi, which uses a series of virtual disks (files) the process essentially is almost 100% unattended.
It isn't virtualizing the OS. Note even close. So, you run Linux natively. The key is that it becomes a virtual disk file under the NTFS partition. When you finally boot into it you see your host drive (the NTFS partition) and you can use that disk space. You only need to specify the higher disk space if you want to. I don't recommend the lowest value because you do have to install applications, etc afterall. Your data can be stored in regular folders under the NTFS partition.
It really is an excellent and creative way to give you Ubuntu. Plus you get the full desktop effects of Bery/compiz. It will not run windows programs (unless you use crossover office or wine or cedega) and was never intended to allow you to do so.
It's purpose is to allow you to install it from within windows without having to repartition. The key to all this is the ntfs-3g support. This provides the Linux boot with full read/write/permissions to the NTFS partition. - Baryn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wow, I'm amazed by how user friendly Linux has gotten in the past 4 years. This is stupidly simple.
- schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And overpriced, at that
- BigJuiceMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4flawless execution
- SendDerek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Agreed.
- MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Unstable => crashing down, updates that break xserver, etc. One week behind upstream.
Stable => not crashing, security updates, etc: . 1-6 months behind upstream.
LTS => supported for a long time to not crash and not have security holes; 1-36 months behind upstream
The idea is this:
- companies should use LTS releases. They don't care about the latest bittorrent app, firefox3, desktop-effects, etc. They get ALMOST debian like stability.
- desktop users should use the normal stable release. Stable as in not-crashing. New features might break stuff that previously was supported. But was works after install keeps working. At least as stable as Windows. The latest 3d stuff, games, codec and hardware support.
- developpers/testers/geeks should use the unstable release. Report bugs, request packages, etc. - Seph7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You obviously haven't used a mac recently
- HomieAS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Can I do a dual boot by installin Ubuntu normally?
- evanstapler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I wonder if this would work on a UMPC.....
- mahdaeng, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Use KDE instead of Gnome.
- Salviati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I have to second this notion: Seems great, but it is too unstable right now. I installed this on a couple of my machines with great success...for a few days. But eventually, without installng anything or reconfiguring the system, after 2-4 days I would get a HAL error that I couldn't fix. It would disable my internet connection, pop up an error message, and disable my intel chipset driver every time I started my computer. And I was unable to re-install the driver or HAL itself. Sadly I tried to get this working 3 times because I wanted it to work so badly, but it was too much. Now I dual boot and I am very pleased.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 